Influencia del conocimiento de las resistencias antibióticas sobre la

Training has been identified and further appraised as a key influencer on the success or failure of the ERP implementation by a number of studies. One of these describes the Learning Requirements Planning (LRP) model, which focuses on integrated learning for ERP success; this focuses on the assumption that in ERP system implementation, the lack of enterprise-wide training is the core reason for failures (Kapp et al, 2001). The model considers training from a wider perspective, in that it involves six-step enterprise levels. Each level comes with a detailed checklist. Those checklists can be integrated together to form the LRP CSF(s) model. Table 2.5 briefly explains the LRP model.

Table 2.5: The Learning Planning Requirements Model No Stage Description

0 What is LRP? LRP is the transformation of corporate strategic goals into discrete, measurable ERP training and implementation objectives, combined with proven feedback methods and systematic performance analysis

1 Analysis The purpose of this process is to identify learning objectives based on the strategic business needs driving the organisation's ERP implementation.

2 Diagnosis In this stage the gap between the existing skills and competencies and the skills and competencies required to obtain the stated strategic and ERP implementation goals of the organization is identified.

3 Design This stage aims to design training and development programme, including. the best training method, ways of presenting of information and of distributing the information to the learner.

4 Implementation Implementation involves utilising LRP process to effectively implement the ERP system

5 Evaluation The focus is on the evaluation of the training and learning that occurs in relationship to the ERP implementation.

6 Continuation This last stage addresses building an organisational mechanism to continuously develop employee skills as they relate to the ERP system.

This integrated process is necessary since, according to Kapp et al (2001) training typically takes on a lower priority than the ERP process, it is often conducted in isolation from the ERP implementation, not relevant to the specific job roles held by the employees and/or training offered by the ERP Vendor does not support the employee to understand the integrated nature of the system, since it is based around technical training only. In addition the lower priority given to it, means that that employees fail to complete all training sessions;

what was required, and rarely happens is the development of a systematic training and development plan. The applicability of the LRP model was appraised by Shahin et al. (2010) in a survey study based on ERP implementation in a large Iranian steel company employing 8000 people. This researchers evaluated the learning that employees received by benchmarking it to the stages recommended in the model, and confirmed Kapp et al.’s (2001) conviction that generally, the training programme related to the ERP implementation did not represent continuous learning; the organisation had not been in an appropriate state for learning at the outset, and relatively scant attention was given to this aspect of implementation, since user learning and development had not been considered an important part of it. As a consequence the implementation had been hindered.

Another framework for learning related to ERP system implementation, was proposed by Dorobat and Nastase (2012), which has the purpose of identifying problems relating to training, as well as reducing resource consumption in other ways, such as time and money. The model was accomplished by a literature review, in which 9 CSFs related to training in ERP implementation, were identified:

1. Top management support

2. Project management in which an initial step is to identify the user needs

3. The Training Curriculum, designed to give significant user support including system command language and new business processes

4. Users commitment training, achieved by explaining the objectives of the training and its benefits.

5. Personnel skills and competencies: so as to plan and deliver appropriate training individual users/groups

6. Training schedule, which is synchronised with the implementation project, so that time lag between training and use of the ERP module is minimal

7. Training budget, which is usually the most underestimated cost in ERP and is high, since new processes must be learnt, it relates to existing employee competences and extra training and support for new employees must be factored in

8. Training evaluation to ensure knowledge transfer has been effective, including cost effective, and that acceptance of the associated organisational change has taken place and benefits are seen

9. Training methods should be varied and appropriate to the difficulty of the issues concerned; the most difficult should take place in a classroom setting and the training should be available in all the languages that are relevant to the company’s operation (those spoken by employees).

The training is delivered by means of CBT (computer based training methodology) which can be customised for individuals; it is called the ERPT training model which used ULM (Unified Language Modelling) technology. The key features of the model are that: the user’s individual learning preference is determined at the outset; the training method is selected to match this preference; a training scheme is then produced for each business process user; when the user deviates from the schema, for instance in generating data, this is detected automatically. The ERPT model can also calculate the time and cost associated with each user’s learning and provide the Training Manager with reports on individual user progress. The ERPT model was successfully tested with Romanian SMEs, which suggests that it has satisfactory applicability but requires more widespread application to objectively judge its effectiveness. However the nine CSF factors that emerged show some similarity to Kapp et al (2001), reinforcing that model and the ERPT model is focused on individual learning, which is a strength that Kapp et al (2001) do not emphasise.